Multiculturalism

I've been on these boards 8 years. Very few of you actually know me. I shouldn't have to PM all of you to explain myself. You entered into a discussion with me already, why do you start out your argument with this bull**** each time? Do you write this now so you have a cop-out later?

You're right, we don't know you. We only know the persona you've put forward on these boards. I bring these things up because I know you could have some excellent conversations on here (not that you don't now) if you made a few simple changes (I.E. drop the holier than thou attitude, listen to what other people are saying rather than cramming words down their throats and stop trying to be so ambiguous). You and Iamamartianchurch have very similar view points, yet I don't sit and weigh whether or not to respond to his post. I do with yours because it usually turns into garbage (I share blame in this). But I know I'm not the only one who does this with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

Then give some actual examples rather than detail it very ambiguously. You make a huge jump from taking traits from one another to creating a new culture. For example, if you found an interracial, married couple would you tell them that neither is representative of their original culture and that they are in fact interbreeding and creating something new? Regardless of whether you'd tell them, do you think either would sacrifice their individual culture? An individual respecting the behavioral norms of someone from a different culture is not the same as modifying whatever existing culture the individual is a member of.

You assume that a respect for culture and a traditionalist point of view leads one to be close-minded and imperialist it seems.

There are many distinct cultures in the U.S. that didn't exist 300 years ago. They exist now because of the mixing of groups from all over the world. That's pretty clear to see. The evolution of culture isn't a single generation kind of thing. So no the interracial couple is not creating something new. (Maybe this is one of the breakdowns between us, I'm typically talking about things in the long term. It seem like you're thinking of things in the short run (I'm probably wrong))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

You said that in reply to Martian. How is a political policy an example of cultural or social tradition? It's not even a bipartisan political policy. So whats the point of bringing up this bad example of multicultural policy (a banning of a practice over all cultural lines, its very equal and fair)?

How is a decree from the Catholic Church a political policy and not a cultural or social tradition?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

These cute little character attacks are too much. So implicit, but right in your face anyway.

They are quite good aren't they....

The fact remains I wouldn't have made my original statement if I were responding to someone other than you. Like I said it seem I have to try and head things off when posting with you. That's just based off of past experience. It wasn't meant insult you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

You're so confused. I JUST SAID that being a traditionalist does not mean I wish to scrap thousands of existing cultures and political institutions to return to an idealized form of the past. Your question only muddies the original intent of my claim. We need to rid ourselves of the rational plan with a rationalist system of its own.

Oakeshott critiqued Friedrich Hayek's the Road to Serfdom and I think we should all read this little tidbit:

I'm for anti-ideological, pragmatic political and economic arrangements. The unique characteristics that arise as do these institutions are not of concern to me.

I'm not confused. I read what you said and understood it. I was merely trying to get an idea of what you wanted. Not saying you wanted to return to 18th century Prussia, just asking if that was something more along the lines of what you'd like to see.

That's great, but it's very vague and hard to have a discussion over. Saying I'm for whatever works and that's not ideological politics is sort of hard to do anything with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

Well, I'd say that a sound government requires a sound culture but it's not worth debating.

I won't disagree with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

When did we begin discussing what laws we can write?

You're also wrong. We can write a law that says group A has to love group B, just as much as we can write laws that say group A can't mistreat group B. AND they'd be equally ineffective.

What concerns me though is just how anti-multiculturalism this law you proposed is. You're saying that rather than create formal rules (laws) that apply equally across society you'd rather create special rules for the weak of society that are formalized laws! Yeah. That will work. Just like Jim Crow laws.

Yes of course we could write that law, but it wouldn't work as you pointed out. Are you really arguing that enforcing anti segregation laws had no effect?

Jim Crow was a flawed system meant to appease white racist as much as it was meant to protect blacks. Using an obviously flawed law as your critique is just bad form. Also I'm not for giving minorities special rights. Just protecting them from abuse by the majority when necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

Homosexuality transcends culture, gender, politics, etc. It's a sexual disposition. We aren't discussing the shift in cultural values that led Massachusetts abolitionists to attempt to secede from the Union in the Civil War, we're talking about one of the few cultural behavioral values that transcended culture! You aren't just going to one day have a black sister if you're from backwoods Alabama, but you might have a gay sister.

So why did you even bring this up?

So there isn't a separate homosexual culture? That doesn't mean every gay person belongs to it, but there is definitely a clear homosexual culture.

To the bold. You just might and I'm sure it's happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

BTW, we didn't write any special laws saying that you have to especially avoid harming homosexuals. At least I'm not aware of it. We do recognize hate crimes though, but we still don't permit gays to marry or adopt so I'm finding it hard to believe this is simply an example of nudging cultures to accept one another when this is one of the few topics people agreed upon regardless of ethnic/racial lines.

I'm fairly sure we did write laws due to harm committed against homosexuals. They may have been broadened to cover more than just homosexuals however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vit Beeyer

If you already know it and I already know it how is sharing that knowledge nothing more than self-congratulatory knowledge masturbation?

I was merely trying not to insult you or Iamamartianchurch. Again I was being extra cautious because I never know how you'll handle things.

__________________
Assumption is the mother of all **** ups. "Thats a lot of Romans over there." "Yes but not one of them is Gisgo." Hannibal Barca and general Gisgo before the battle of Cannae in 216 BC.

From my observevations of human nature and other primates, monarchy seems most in accordance with human nature. Coincidentally it is easy the longest running form of government. We naturally seem to look up to a leader. You'll find that in how presidential elections are treated and even belief in God. The idea behind monarchy and aristocracy is you put your best up top to guide and lead. The motivation for doing well is that you must create a stable nation not only for yourself but for your children who will one day take your spot. Traits are hereditary therefore, save for inbreeding and genetic deformation, and pure probability, it is likely your children will be a chip off the old block.

Now it ain't perfect, there are flaws. Obviously if a leader is decadent he should be deposed and a new line should be established. I think the baby got thrown out with the bath water. I'm not a monarchist by any means. I think it has its merits. Probably not for every group either. I'll let them figure that out.

For example. I dont think that monarchy is good for the english. This is because the English view social class in terms of wealth. Prussians on the other hand view social class by duty and ability. The reward was the prestige. The public servants and such were not paid terribly well. The reward was rank. Rank and duty. For this, monarchy works better. I believe the Prussian attitude and model is what Jefferson names the natural aristocracy.

As I talked earlier about resonance. The Prussian values resonate within me. Unknown for a long time until I.had exposure to what I'm talking about. I've always taken.higher positions with little regard for increase compensation. Its always been about the challenge and the prestige.

Thanks for that. While I don't agree with much of that view I don't disagree with all of it and I respect your opinion. I'm not sure this is the thread to do it in and I'm out of time for now, but I might come back to this.

__________________
Assumption is the mother of all **** ups. "Thats a lot of Romans over there." "Yes but not one of them is Gisgo." Hannibal Barca and general Gisgo before the battle of Cannae in 216 BC.

You're right, we don't know you. We only know the persona you've put forward on these boards. I bring these things up because I know you could have some excellent conversations on here (not that you don't now) if you made a few simple changes (I.E. drop the holier than thou attitude, listen to what other people are saying rather than cramming words down their throats and stop trying to be so ambiguous). You and Iamamartianchurch have very similar view points, yet I don't sit and weigh whether or not to respond to his post. I do with yours because it usually turns into garbage (I share blame in this). But I know I'm not the only one who does this with you.

And if you pressed me and I explained my attitude and how every poster on here who gets exposed to my salty rhetoric is really someone I've dealt with in the past you'd understand better. It's not like I don't have enough people on here I can converse with in an intellectual manner for a sustained period of time, and when I'm yearning to do so it leads to PMs, not posts on a forum. but I'll digress.

Quote:

There are many distinct cultures in the U.S. that didn't exist 300 years ago. They exist now because of the mixing of groups from all over the world. That's pretty clear to see. The evolution of culture isn't a single generation kind of thing. So no the interracial couple is not creating something new. (Maybe this is one of the breakdowns between us, I'm typically talking about things in the long term. It seem like you're thinking of things in the short run (I'm probably wrong))

Fallacy of composition. The long run is a series of short runs.

There are many distinct cultures, yes, but they aren't merely the result of existing cultures blending together until the original cultures have morphed into something new. A new subculture, such as the Bay Area thrash scene in the 80s/90s, is the result of people abstracting rules, norms, etc. from experience. Given that the initial experience for everyone is different (I.e. someone born in NYC in the 80s will have a different cultural experience than the kid born in Miami in the early 90s) their abstractions from experience will be difference. As each individual interacts with one another their abstractions interact and mutate until a generalized code of conduct is formed, and with that an underlying culture. This will keep happening as long as human beings interact with one another.

Quote:

How is a decree from the Catholic Church a political policy and not a cultural or social tradition?

It is not a political policy but this above sentence is a straw man. I never said the decree was a political policy, but something like a ban on birth control is. Saying that members of your faith cannot use birth control if they wish to live a life in line with God, or whatever the hell they say, is not the same as creating a government enforced ban on contraception. A ban isn't a ban if you can still freely acquire it from a neighborhood firm.

Also, how is a cultural value useless?

Quote:

They are quite good aren't they....

The fact remains I wouldn't have made my original statement if I were responding to someone other than you. Like I said it seem I have to try and head things off when posting with you. That's just based off of past experience. It wasn't meant insult you.

Okay, fine. And it doesn't insult me. See, you're doing exactly what I would do to other posters yet the only difference is I don't get butthurt.

Now lets focus on the topic.

Quote:

That's great, but it's very vague and hard to have a discussion over. Saying I'm for whatever works and that's not ideological politics is sort of hard to do anything with.

It's not vague at all given that since Enlightenment politics has become a rationalist politics and I am in fact asking for the exact opposite...

Quote:

Yes of course we could write that law, but it wouldn't work as you pointed out. Are you really arguing that enforcing anti segregation laws had no effect?

We? Lol. You aren't a monarch, or a political influence. We are more likely to win the lottery 10 times in a row than we are to write such a law.

Anti-segregation laws had an effect, but it didn't, with a paternalistic nudge, change the social values of people. It merely created an incentive for people not to publicly segregate.

If anti-segregation laws worked in such a way would you also lead me to believe that NYC will begin nudging their citizens away from drinking large sodas with their ban on large drinks until they just don't want them anymore?

Quote:

Jim Crow was a flawed system meant to appease white racist as much as it was meant to protect blacks. Using an obviously flawed law as your critique is just bad form. Also I'm not for giving minorities special rights. Just protecting them from abuse by the majority when necessary.

If you aren't for giving minorities special rights than why cannot we protect minorities with the same laws that protect the majority white citizen?

Quote:

So there isn't a separate homosexual culture? That doesn't mean every gay person belongs to it, but there is definitely a clear homosexual culture.

To the bold. You just might and I'm sure it's happened.

Yes, there is a clear gay culture. And it is also clear that most existing ethnic, religious, and political cultures were united against the ability for gays to utilize the institution of marriage. They also used to be united in believing they were a subspecies almost. Your original claim is that laws telling group A not to harm group B is the reason we aren't all gay bashers now. That's silly and not very multicultural.

Also, you misunderstood the claim in question. Homosexuality occurs throughout nature. It can "happen" to anyone. That's what has allowed us to better respect the rights of people throughout society. Not because the government made laws regarding hate crimes.

Quote:

I'm fairly sure we did write laws due to harm committed against homosexuals. They may have been broadened to cover more than just homosexuals however.

Besides hate crimes which I already mentioned what are they exactly?

Quote:

I was merely trying not to insult you or Iamamartianchurch. Again I was being extra cautious because I never know how you'll handle things.

Lul. More set-ups for potential copouts? You don't know how I'll handle things but you're the only one being insulting.

edit: Your adam smith quote is GREATLY out of context in your sig. Greatly out of context. just an fyi.

Yes, there is a clear gay culture. And it is also clear that most existing ethnic, religious, and political cultures were united against the ability for gays to utilize the institution of marriage. They also used to be united in believing they were a subspecies almost. Your original claim is that laws telling group A not to harm group B is the reason we aren't all gay bashers now. That's silly and not very multicultural.

Also, you misunderstood the claim in question. Homosexuality occurs throughout nature. It can "happen" to anyone. That's what has allowed us to better respect the rights of people throughout society. Not because the government made laws regarding hate crimes.

See this is a perfect example. I don't think you fully read what I say. It's like you skim it over and then go off what you assume I would say.

I never said laws telling group A not to harm group B was the reason attitudes have changed. Here is what I said the reason for the change was "From my perspective, all it took was enough exposure on a personal level coupled with some education and people's minds started to change in a hurry". The thing about laws was in response to you saying we aren't going to make people love each other through the laws. My response was no we can't through law but we can try to protect group B from group A through the law.

I'll get to the rest of your post tomorrow.

Edit: The quote is there to piss off and point out people who misuse quotes from historic figures to explain their views. Ironic isn't it.

__________________
Assumption is the mother of all **** ups. "Thats a lot of Romans over there." "Yes but not one of them is Gisgo." Hannibal Barca and general Gisgo before the battle of Cannae in 216 BC.

See this is a perfect example. I don't think you fully read what I say. It's like you skim it over and then go off what you assume I would say.

I never said laws telling group A not to harm group B was the reason attitudes have changed. Here is what I said the reason for the change was "From my perspective, all it took was enough exposure on a personal level coupled with some education and people's minds started to change in a hurry". The thing about laws was in response to you saying we aren't going to make people love each other through the laws. My response was no we can't through law but we can try to protect group B from group A through the law.

I'll get to the rest of your post tomorrow.

Edit: The quote is there to piss off and point out people who misuse quotes from historic figures to explain their views. Ironic isn't it.

Okay good on the quote, I sort of expected that but you're targeting a small group of people who would know the context

Anyway, you need to separate your points better. When you combine the two it seems like you're seeing a correlation. Anyway, we already have laws like that to protect people. The problem is a lack of enforcement with equality to all. We don't need a special law declaring it's not okay to violently harm a gay man/woman because we already have laws declaring it's not okay to violently harm anyone. And mentally etc.

If that's all that was needed to change the tides of opinion in regards to gay marriage that's great, what does it have to do with multiculturalism? Ironically enough the most open gay people typically live in strictly gay neighborhoods. How multicultural.